The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 10 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Mendelian randomization (MR) studies use genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures to assess their possible causal relationship with outcomes and aim to reduce potential bias from confounding and reverse causation. Objective: To develop the STROBE-MR Statement as a stand-alone extension to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline for the reporting of MR studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: The development of the STROBE-MR Statement followed the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) framework guidance and used the STROBE Statement as a starting point to draft a checklist tailored to MR studies. The project was initiated in 2018 by reviewing the literature on the reporting of instrumental variable and MR studies. A group of 17 experts, including MR methodologists, MR study design users, developers of previous reporting guidelines, and journal editors, participated in a workshop in May 2019 to define the scope of the Statement and draft the checklist. The draft checklist was published as a preprint in July 2019 and discussed on the preprint platform, in social media, and at the 4th Mendelian Randomization Conference. The checklist was then revised based on comments, further refined through 2020, and finalized in July 2021. Findings: The STROBE-MR checklist is organized into 6 sections (Title and Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other Information) and includes 20 main items and 30 subitems. It covers both 1-sample and 2-sample MR studies that assess 1 or multiple exposures and outcomes, and addresses MR studies that follow a genome-wide association study and are reported in the same article. The checklist asks authors to justify why MR is a helpful method to address the study question and state prespecified causal hypotheses. The measurement, quality, and selection of genetic variants must be described and attempts to assess validity of MR-specific assumptions should be well reported. An item on data sharing includes reporting when the data and statistical code required to replicate the analyses can be accessed. Conclusions and Relevance: STROBE-MR provides guidelines for reporting MR studies. Improved reporting of these studies could facilitate their evaluation by editors, peer reviewers, researchers, clinicians, and other readers, and enhance the interpretation of their results.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The STROBE-MR Statement is a reporting guideline for Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, developed as a stand-alone extension of STROBE using EQUATOR guidance. It provides a 20-item, 30-subitem checklist covering 1-sample and 2-sample MR studies and emphasizes transparent reporting of MR-specific assumptions, validity assessments, and data/code availability.
Key findings
- The final STROBE-MR checklist is organized into 6 sections (Title and Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other Information) and includes 20 main items and 30 subitems.
- It covers both 1-sample and 2-sample MR studies assessing one or multiple exposures and outcomes, including MR studies that follow a genome-wide association study and are reported in the same article.
- Pilot testing on 20 MR articles published in 2018 found reporting deficiencies: none of the 10 2-sample MR studies described the underlying exposure and outcome study populations in detail, compared them, or discussed sample overlap; only 10 studies (50%) reported efforts to test and correct for possible pleiotropy; details on imputation of missing genetic data or minor allele frequency cutoffs were missing in 11 of 20 articles (55%); instrument strength was reported in 10 (50%); 10 (50%) lacked discussion of clinical or public health relevance; and 13 (65%) did not address generalizability.
- The checklist asks authors to justify why MR is helpful, state prespecified causal hypotheses, describe measurement/quality/selection of genetic variants, report assessment of MR assumptions, and report where data and statistical code can be accessed.
Methods
- Development followed the EQUATOR framework, used STROBE as a starting point, and was initiated in 2018 by reviewing literature on reporting of instrumental variable and MR studies.
- A group of 17 experts participated in a May 2019 workshop; the draft checklist was published as a preprint in July 2019, revised through 2020, and finalized in July 2021.
- The draft checklist was pilot-tested on a random sample of 20 original MR articles published in 2018 (10 one-sample and 10 two-sample), selected from 404 potentially eligible articles as of April 1, 2019; this was not intended as a systematic review.
Limitations
- The paper states that the statement does not describe all methods that can be used to assess all assumptions required in an MR study, although major assumptions and commonly used methods are described.
- The paper states that, as a consensus document, it will be updated with further community feedback, and that no systematic review was undertaken to better understand reporting deficiencies in MR studies.
- Evident from the text: no formal Delphi process was performed, the pilot review was not a systematic review, and the checklist is explicitly not intended as an instrument to evaluate MR research quality.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
12 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 11 No basis given · 8 Own result · 1 Supported · 1 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information on the strength of genetic instrument was reported in 10 (50%) of the 20 studies.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, none of the 10 2-sample mendelian randomization studies described the underlying exposure and outcome study populations in detail, compared them, or discussed sample overlap.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only 10 studies (50%) reported efforts to test and correct for possible pleiotropy.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Details on the imputation of missing genetic data or minor allele frequency cutoffs were missing in 11 of the 20 articles reviewed (55%).”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ten (50%) of the surveyed publications lacked a discussion of clinical or public health relevance, and 13 (65%) did not address the generalizability of the study results.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ten (50%) of the surveyed publications lacked a discussion of clinical or public health relevance, and 13 (65%) did not address the generalizability of the study results.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Testing the draft checklist on the sample of 20 mendelian randomization articles published in 2018 confirmed these deficiencies.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature review identified only a few articles that specifically addressed the reporting of instrumental variable or mendelian randomization studies.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Development of STROBE-MR was informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development.14”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Initial Steps
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] source
The Abstract identifies this as guidance from EQUATOR Network authors on developing health research reporting guidelines. The Discussion describes its 18-step checklist, confirming that the cited paper provides the methodological framework the citing authors say informed STROBE-MR development; it need not itself mention STROBE-MR. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All other items and subitems were modified to address requirements specific to reporting of mendelian randomization studies.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As of July 2021, the preprint had been viewed more than 5000 times and downloaded more than 3500 times.18”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Further Consultation and E&E
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“STROBE-MR was developed as a guideline for reporting mendelian randomization studies.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > M
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“STROBE-MR gives much emphasis on the transparent reporting of assessments of the validity of the assumptions and sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the main results to violations of the assumptions.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with the original STROBE checklist, 13 which included 22 items and 18 subitems, STROBE-MR has 2 fewer items (20) but 12 more subitems (30).”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similar to the STROBE checklist, 13 the items are grouped into sections Title and Abstract (item 1), Introduction (items 2-3), Methods (items 4-9), Results (items 10-13), Discussion (items 14-17), and Other Information (items 18-20).”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They cover both 1-sample and 2-sample mendelian randomization studies that assess or multiple exposures and outcomes and mendelian randomization studies that follow a genome-wide association study and are reported in the same article.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Scope of STROBE-MR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The STROBE-MR guidelines do not apply to genome-wide association studies, which are covered by STREGA 22 (Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Association Studies), sequencing studies, expression studies, or the traditional observational epidemiology studies covered by STROBE.13”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Linkage disequilibrium
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only 1 subitem (No. 6d) remained unchanged (Table 2).”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The group agreed that the guidelines should apply to studies that use properties of germline genetic variation to strengthen potential causal inference of modifiable exposures on outcomes.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Scope of STROBE-MR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The guidelines are tailored to the majority of such studies that use an instrumental variable framework.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Scope of STROBE-MR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As noted by Emdin et al, 2 “[m]endelian randomization rests on 3 main assumptions: (1) the genetic variant is associated with the risk factor; (2) the genetic variant is not associated with confounders; and (3) the genetic variant influences the outcome only through the risk factor.””
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Emdin et al, 2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite increasing relevance and popularity of mendelian randomization studies, their reporting is often incomplete, which may limit the credibility of potential causal inference.[10][11][12]”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10][11][12]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assumptions are violated if, for example, there is horizontal pleiotropy, in which the genetic variant influences the outcome independently of the risk factor.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > M
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Misleading inferences can be generated in mendelian randomization analyses if the relationships relating the exposure to the outcome are misspecified, for example, if the genotype directly affects the outcome, which then affects the putative exposure (ie, reverse causation).”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > M
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Mendelian randomization (MR) studies use genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures to assess their possible causal relationship with outcomes and aim to reduce potential bias from confounding and reverse causation.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1][2][3]
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mendelian randomization can be applied within the instrumental variable framework, if specific assumptions are met.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > M
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Systematic reviews of reporting quality in mendelian randomization studies indicate that many reports of mendelian randomization studies do not clearly state or examine the various assumptions of mendelian randomization methods and report insufficient details on the data sources.[10][11][12]”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Literature Review and Test of Draft Checklist
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10][11][12]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“reporting guidelines are not recommendations for designing or conducting studies, although they may contribute to improving methodology.14”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The draft checklist was published as a preprint in July 2019 18 and debated on the preprint platform, Twitter, and at the 4th Mendelian Randomization Conference.19”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Further Consultation and E&E
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drs Skrivankova and Egger had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Contribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with consecutive drafts subjected to an extensive iterative process of consultation.Thus, the checklist presented herein is based on input from a large number of individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funders/sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the statement attempts to provide comprehensive reporting guidelines and describe their generation, but does not describe all methods that can be used to assess all of the assumptions that are required within a mendelian randomization study.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relevant empirical evidence on the reporting of mendelian randomization studies was reviewed, and the first draft of the STROBE-MR checklist was piloted on recently published mendelian randomization studies, with consecutive drafts subjected to an extensive iterative process of consultation.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the major assumptions and commonly used methods to assess their validity have been described.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The comprehensive E&E document, 15 which is intended for use alongside the checklist, also benefited greatly from this consultation process.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, a systematic review has not been undertaken to better understand reporting deficiencies in mendelian randomization studies.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dr Golub, JAMA Deputy Editor, was not involved in the evaluation or review of this manuscript, or in the decision regarding publication.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Reporting guidelines, such as the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, 13 can improve reporting quality.14”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > M
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as with any consensus document, feedback from the community has been sought and incorporated, and future iterations of this document will be updated to incorporate further feedback from individuals interested in undertaking and interpreting mendelian randomization studies.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Limitations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved reporting of these studies could facilitate their evaluation by editors, peer reviewers, researchers, clinicians, and other readers, and enhance the interpretation of their results.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Reporting of mendelian randomization studies is currently deficient and stands to be improved.
In the paper
“The STROBE checklist was used as the point of departure, thoroughly modifying and adapting it to mendelian randomization studies through an open process in accordance with the guidance for developers of reporting guidelines.14”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the checklist is not an instrument to evaluate mendelian randomization research quality, and it should not be used for this purpose.29”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > STROBE-MR Checklist
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A formal Delphi process was not performed.”
§ Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization > Meeting Preparation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Mendelian randomization studies use genetic variants that are reliably associated with exposures of interest but do not vary with correlated lifestyle or socioeconomic factors that may confound conventional observational associations.
“Mendelian randomization studies use genetic variants, typically single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), that are reliably associated with exposures of interest but do not vary with the correlated lifestyle or socioeconomic factors that may confound conventional observational associations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of published Mendelian randomization studies increased from 1 report in 2003 to more than 800 articles in 2020.
“In recent decades, the number of published mendelian randomization studies has increased rapidly, from 1 report in 2003 to more than 800 articles in 2020.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 20 randomly selected 2018 Mendelian randomization articles are representative enough to confirm reporting deficiencies in Mendelian randomization studies.
“Of 404 potentially eligible articles (as of April 1, 2019), 20 were randomly selected and scanned to determine whether they contained original research.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The expert consensus process used, without a formal Delphi process, yields a valid reporting guideline.
“A formal Delphi process was not performed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reporting of mendelian randomization studies is currently deficient and stands to be improved.
“Third, a systematic review has not been undertaken to better understand reporting deficiencies in mendelian randomization studies.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Mendelian Randomisation reporting guidelines (Supplementary table S1)18.”
From Genetic insights into causal effects of lipids and lipid-modifying targets on calcific aortic valve stenosis: a Mendelian randomized study (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“Described in detail elsewhere,27 we established this initiative in 2018, following guidance for the development of medical research reporting guidelines.28”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. (2021) · cites this paper as [27]
Citations
Cites
Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.ad · Cited by 10,766
Self-citationVandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
Self-citationDavey Smith, G., & Ebrahim, S. (2003) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyg070 · Cited by 5,882
Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology
Lawlor, D. A., Harbord, R. M., Sterne, J. A. C., Timpson, N., & Davey Smith, G. (2008) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3034 · Cited by 4,618
Self-citationReading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians
Davies, N. M., Holmes, M. V., & Davey Smith, G. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k601 · Cited by 4,404 · cited 1×
“7 As noted by Emdin et al,2 “[m]endelian randomization rests on 3 main assumptions: (1) the genetic variant is associated with the risk factor; (2) the genetic variant is not associated with confounders; and (3) the genetic variant influences the outcome only through the risk factor.”
BackgroundSelf-citationEmdin, C. A., Khera, A. V., & Kathiresan, S. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.17219 · Cited by 3,637
Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
Self-citationSkrivankova, V. W., Richmond, R. C., Woolf, B. A. R., Davies, N. M., Swanson, S. A., VanderWeele, T. J., Timpson, N. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Dimou, N., Langenberg, C., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n2233 · Cited by 1,648
Self-citationGuidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · Cited by 1,437
Higgins (2002) · doi:10.1002/(issn)1097-0258 · Cited by 1,248
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol. 4th Mendelian Randomization Conference 2019. Accessed July 10, 2019. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/integrative-epidemiology/seminars/2019/mr-conference-2019.html
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 1,004
Wu, H., Zheng, D., Zhou, L., Wang, Q., Wang, T., & Liang, S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-82987-3 · Cited by 6
Zhu, C., Wang, Y., Yang, X., Zhao, Q., Xu, W., Wang, X., Liang, Y., Chen, Q., & Fan, S. (2025) · Communications Medicine · doi:10.1038/s43856-025-00754-5 · Cited by 8
Mendelian randomization analysis to identify potential drug targets for osteoarthritis
Lu, C., Xu, Y., Chen, S., Guo, L., Li, P., Wei, X., & Rong, X. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316824 · Cited by 6
“This causal analysis adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor and standardization of the study (S1 Table) [18].”
Zhong, M., An, H., & Gan, H. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-90462-w · Cited by 6
Li, Y., Zhuang, M., Mei, S., Hu, G., Zhang, J., Qiu, W., Wang, X., & Tang, J. (2025) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-025-13574-6 · Cited by 6
Adewuyi, E. O., & Laws, S. M. (2025) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines13030618 · Cited by 5
“We also used the Mendelian randomisation (MR) method [28–31] to investigate whether CAC or AAC is causally associated with AD or cognitive traits, and vice versa.”
InfluentialAssociation and shared biological bases between birth weight and cortical structure
Zhang, L., Ge, Q., Sun, Z., Zhang, R., Li, X., Luo, X., Tian, R., Cao, Y., Pu, C., Lin, L., et al. (2025) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-025-03294-7 · Cited by 6
“We reported the MR analyses following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using MR (STROBE-MR) [31] (Supplementary Table 4).”
Alghitran, A. A., Alosaimi, H., Albuluwi, A., Almalki, E. O., Aldowayan, A. Z., Alharthi, R., Qattan, J. M., Alghamdi, F., AlHalabi, M., Almalki, N. A., et al. (2025) · Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice · doi:10.2147/iprp.s500689 · Cited by 9
Yang, X., Li, D., Chen, Y., Zhang, X., & Zhao, Q. (2025) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s501674 · Cited by 9
Dinkelbach, L., Peters, T., Grasemann, C., Hinney, A., & Hirtz, R. (2025) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291725000352 · Cited by 6
Luan, B., Yang, Y., Yang, Q., Li, Z., Xu, Z., Chen, Y., Wang, M., Chen, W., & Ge, F. (2025) · AMB Express · doi:10.1186/s13568-025-01866-w · Cited by 6
“The design of this study rigorously adheres to the STROBE-MR guidelines (Skrivankova et al. 2021) (Table S1: STROBE-MR checklist).”
Wu, Z., Yang, J., Zhu, Y., Li, J., Xu, K., Li, Y., Zhong, G., Xu, Y., Guo, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Mediators of Inflammation · doi:10.1155/mi/6005225 · Cited by 7
“This study followed STROBE-MR guidelines and employed a two-sample MR approach, using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary data from May 20, 2024 [25].”
Shen, Y., Cheng, J., Ding, Q., & Tao, Z. (2025) · Journal of Ovarian Research · doi:10.1186/s13048-025-01664-9 · Cited by 6
“By relying on the random distribution of alleles associated with exposure, MR effectively minimizes confounding in observational studies and mitigates bias from reverse causation [20, 21].”
Lu, Y., Chen, S., Yao, R., Chen, F., Wang, Y., Yuan, Z., Lu, D., Ren, H., Wang, X., Lin, B., et al. (2025) · Mediators of Inflammation · doi:10.1155/mi/5707884 · Cited by 6
“Mendelian Randomization (STROBE-MR) guidelines (Table S1) [13].”
Bao, Y., Chen, J., Han, X., He, Y., Yang, T., Shi, X., Chen, J., Gu, L., Wang, S., Xie, L., et al. (2025) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.039195 · Cited by 6
Dong, H., Du, X., Zhao, J. X., Liu, D., & Du, H. (2025) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-025-11753-x · Cited by 6
Association between metabolic syndrome and low back pain: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Yan, W., Kong, L., He, T., Guo, G., Zhu, Q., Xi, X., & Fang, M. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-02630-7 · Cited by 6
Metabolic syndrome and cancer risk: A bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Wang, Q., Li, J., Qiao, H., Zhang, Y., Xu, Y., Chen, R., Liu, K., Zhang, S., & Zhuang, G. (2025) · Experimental Gerontology · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2025.112802 · Cited by 6
“To improve the accuracy and standardization of our research, we strictly followed the guidelines of the “ Report on Strengthening Mendelian Randomized Epidemiological Observational Studies ” (STRBOE-MR) to report our research results (Supplementary file 1) (Skrivankova et al., 2021).”
Wang, S., Mei, S., Ma, X., Wuyun, Q., Zhou, L., Luo, Q., Cai, Z., & Yan, J. (2025) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines13081838 · Cited by 6
“This study adhered to the reporting guidelines outlined in Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian randomization (STROBE-MR) [32].”
Perirenal Adipose Tissue and Hypertension: Observational and Genetic Analyses
Shen, H., Wu, Z., Luo, W., Chen, X., Yang, J., Zeng, Q., He, C., Mao, Y. J., Ma, L., Gao, R., et al. (2025) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.125.24995 · Cited by 7
Xin, P., Pei, S., Ma, N., & Xiao, L. (2025) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.19661 · Cited by 7
Adiposity distribution and risks of 12 obesity-related cancers: a Mendelian randomization analysis
Hazelwood, E., Goudswaard, L. J., Lee, M. A., Vabistsevits, M., Pournaras, D. J., Brenner, H., Buchanan, D. D., Gruber, S. B., Gsur, A., Li, L., et al. (2025) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaf201 · Cited by 7
Self-citationSGLT2 inhibitor, bone metabolism biomarkers, and osteoporosis risk: A Mendelian randomization study
Wang, X., Chen, Y., Cheng, Z., Cao, Z., Li, Q., Zhang, F., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Chen, Y., Li, Z., et al. (2025) · Experimental Gerontology · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2025.112935 · Cited by 6
Zou, Y., Wei, S., Ren, Q., Zhou, T., Lu, S., Li, R., Ma, Y., Yuan, L., Wang, J., She, W., et al. (2026) · JACC Basic to Translational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2026.101511 · Cited by 6
Khelfaoui, I., Wang, W., Shehata, A. I., Meskher, H., Basuini, M. F. E., Mohamed, A. M. A., Abouelenein, M. F., Degha, H. E., Alhoshy, M., Teiba, I. I., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2026.1705116 · Cited by 8
“Third, we introduce the STROBE-CML guidelines, an extension of the widely adopted STROBE framework (Cuschieri, 2019; Skrivankova et al., 2021), tailored specifically for causal ML studies in microbiome science, designed to promote transparency, reproducibility, and comparability across studies.”
Liu, W. Y., Wang, X., Feng, R., Zhao, C., Luo, J., Zhang, X., Liu, X., Yang, M., Min, J., Mao, B., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1276046 · Cited by 6
Eliminating COVID‐19 as the immediate culprit for igniting pancreatitis
Ge, P., Luo, Y., Liu, J., Liu, J., Wen, H., Zhang, G., & Chen, H. (2023) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.29272 · Cited by 6
Gamma-glutamyl transferase and calculus of kidney incidence: a Mendelian randomization study
Li, P., Pang, Y., He, S., Duan, J., Gong, H., Yan, Y., & Shi, J. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-48610-7 · Cited by 6
Ding, W., Huang, Y., Li, G., Dong, Y., Li, X., Wu, M., Song, K., & Li, F. (2023) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-023-07004-1 · Cited by 6
Wang, L., Deng, J.-Y., Fan, X.-Y., Yang, D., Zhu, P.-Y., & Wang, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1323812 · Cited by 7
Tang, J., & Huang, M. (2024) · Journal of Intensive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jointm.2023.11.006 · Cited by 6
Guo, D., Diao, Z., Wang, K., & Pang, C. (2024) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000036873 · Cited by 6
Shi, J., Yi, M., Xie, S., Wang, Z., Zhang, X., Tan, X., Tao, D., Liu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52469-7 · Cited by 6
Huang, M., Wu, Y. Q., Li, Y., Chen, X., Feng, J., Li, Z., Li, J., Chen, J., Lu, Y., & Feng, Y. (2024) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/s12864-024-10003-z · Cited by 7
Uromodulin in sepsis and severe pneumonia: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study
Eriksson, M., Lipcsey, M., Ilboudo, Y., Yoshiji, S., Richards, J. B., & Hultström, M. (2024) · Physiological Genomics · doi:10.1152/physiolgenomics.00145.2023 · Cited by 6
Self-citationChen, J., & Li, Y. (2024) · Skin Research and Technology · doi:10.1111/srt.13619 · Cited by 5
RetractedMa, C., Tang, L. L., Yao, J., & Tan, G. (2024) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm14030262 · Cited by 6
Zhang, Y., Liu, H., Dai, Y., Ye, F., Luo, W., Tu, S., Chen, W., Kong, S., He, Y., Tan, N., et al. (2024) · European Journal of Preventive Cardiology · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwae060 · Cited by 7
Causal relationship between physical activity and platelet traits: a Mendelian randomization study
Jia, M., Wang, Z., & Hu, F. B. (2024) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1371638 · Cited by 6
Li, C., Tian, Y., Dougarem, D., Sun, L., & Zhong, Z. (2024) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2024.1359579 · Cited by 6
Yin, P., Tao, S., Xing, Z., Luo, S., Yang, Z., Xue, Z., Yang, R., Liu, L., Wu, S., & Ge, J. (2024) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1093/postmj/qgae031 · Cited by 7
Sun, D., Ma, R., Wang, J., Wang, Y., & Ye, Q. (2024) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1325127 · Cited by 7
Besnier, E., Schmidely, P., Dubois, G., Lemonne, P., Todesco, L., Aludaat, C., Caus, T., Selim, J., Lorne, E., & Abou-Arab, O. (2024) · JTCVS Open · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2024.04.008 · Cited by 6
Huang, G., Hong, W., Wang, K., Xu, M., Chen, B., Qian, D., & Pei, B. (2024) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-024-07465-3 · Cited by 7
Lv, D., Wang, H., Leng, Y., Chen, S., Haitao, S., Meng, X., Liu, T., & Xiong, Z. (2024) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1362584 · Cited by 7
Yu, Y., Yang, X., Hu, G., Yin, Y., & Yu, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1397006 · Cited by 6
Liu, W., Lin, Q. D., Fan, Z., Cui, J., & Wu, Y. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304379 · Cited by 6
Wang, X., Xiong, W., Li, M., Wu, L., Zhang, Y., Zhu, C., Lin, W., Chen, S., & Huang, H. (2024) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2024.1388920 · Cited by 6
Fu, H.-S., Jiang, S.-W., Song, S.-Y., Zhang, C., & Xie, Q. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1359080 · Cited by 4
Yang, Y. H., Zhang, H., Tian, X., Wang, S., Chen, Y., & Zhang, J. (2024) · Orthopaedic Surgery · doi:10.1111/os.14129 · Cited by 6
Yuan, D., Yang, J., Wu, W., Amier, Y., Li, X., Wan, W., Huang, Y., Li, J., & Yu, X. (2024) · BMC Immunology · doi:10.1186/s12865-024-00627-x · Cited by 6
Hu, Y., Yu, M., Wang, Y., Wu, H., Yang, X., Chen, X., & Wu, J. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16131986 · Cited by 9
Zhou, X., Ruan, W., Li, J., Wang, T., Liu, H., & Zhang, G. (2024) · Obesity · doi:10.1002/oby.24095 · Cited by 6
Sánchez-Calavera, M. A., Navarro, R. G., Otal, E. A., González, I. B., Pardo, D. E., Celma, L. H., Lamarre, M., Esteban, P. L., del Hoyo, M. L. L., Mahulea, L., et al. (2024) · Primary care diabetes · doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2024.06.006 · Cited by 6
Xie, L., Gan, W., & Cai, G. (2024) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1402014 · Cited by 7
Cao, Z., Long, X., & Yuan, L. (2024) · The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2024.106584 · Cited by 7
Zhongyuan, B., Hao, J., Chen, M., Yao, K., Zheng, L., Liu, L., Hu, J.-X., Guo, K., Lv, Y., & Li, F. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-66780-w · Cited by 6
Yin, Y., & Zhang, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2024.1392341 · Cited by 6
Cui, D., An, R., Li, L., Jiang, L., Jiang, C., & Jin, J. (2024) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-09678-2 · Cited by 8
Yan, S., He, J., Yu, X., Shang, J., Zhang, Y., Bai, H., Zhu, X., Xie, X., & Lee, L. (2024) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1417009 · Cited by 7
Lv, Y. (2024) · International Immunopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112786 · Cited by 6
Chen, X., Cai, L., Fan, W., Yang, Q., Mao, X., & Yao, L. (2024) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1439344 · Cited by 6
Shen, C., Fang, M., Zhang, X., Zhu, Z., Chen, J., & Tang, G. (2024) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1459634 · Cited by 7
Liu, C., Peng, J., Liu, Y., Peng, Y., & Ma, Q. (2024) · Atherosclerosis · doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2024.118572 · Cited by 6
Feng, Y., Pei, J.-Y., Wang, Y., & Feng, X. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.100 · Cited by 8
Xie, F., Feng, Z., & Xu, B. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16172943 · Cited by 8
Causal relationships between gut microbiome and aplastic anemia: a Mendelian randomization analysis
Liu, J., Wang, X., Huang, L., Lin, X., Yin, W., & Chen, M. (2024) · Hematology · doi:10.1080/16078454.2024.2399421 · Cited by 9
Causality between sarcopenia and diabetic neuropathy
Fang, Y., Yuan, X., Zhang, Q., Liu, J., Yao, Q., & Ye, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1428835 · Cited by 8
Guo, J., Yang, P., Wang, J., Tang, S.-H., Han, J.-Z., Yao, S., Yu, K., Liu, C., Dong, S., Zhang, K., et al. (2024) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-024-03095-4 · Cited by 6
Xiang, N., Su, S., Yang, Y., Luo, Y., Fu, T., Wang, L., Lin, Y., & Huang, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1394252 · Cited by 6
Effects of multiple fluid intake on Urolithiasis by mendelian randomization study
Zhang, Q., Guo, Z., Zhang, J., Liu, H., & Yi, L. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-73891-x · Cited by 7
Deng, S., Mao, R., & He, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1452801 · Cited by 6
Zhang, Y., Zhao, L., Jia, Y., Zhang, X., Han, Y., Lu, P., & Yuan, H. (2024) · Journal of Diabetes Research · doi:10.1155/2024/4545595 · Cited by 6
Correlation between gut microbiota and pancreatitis: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization
Nan, B., Jin, L., Wang, T., Long, C., Zhao, H., Wang, C., & Zhang, W. (2024) · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000002861 · Cited by 6
Bao, Y., Gu, L., Chen, J., Wang, H., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Wang, S., & Wang, L. (2024) · Journal of Translational Autoimmunity · doi:10.1016/j.jtauto.2024.100259 · Cited by 6
Association between human blood metabolome and risk of myocarditis: a mendelian randomization study
Wang, Z., Tian, H., & Wang, J. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-78359-6 · Cited by 6
Li, M., Qu, K., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Shen, Y., & Sun, L. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.11.044 · Cited by 6
Zhao, D., Sui, Y., & Sun, Y. (2024) · World Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.10.140 · Cited by 6
Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Zhou, Y., Tang, Y., & Huang, C. (2024) · Journal of Endodontics · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2024.11.010 · Cited by 6
Feng, Y., Xiao, A., Xing, C., Dai, Q., Liu, X., Liu, J., & Feng, L. (2024) · Endocrine · doi:10.1007/s12020-024-04126-2 · Cited by 6
Sun, L., Zhang, C., Song, P., Zhong, X., Xie, B., Huang, Y., Yuanjia, H., Xu, X., & Lei, X. (2024) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.11.020 · Cited by 6
Lu, T., Manousaki, D., Sun, L., & Paterson, A. D. (2025) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/db24-0380 · Cited by 7
Evaluating lipid-lowering drug targets for full-course diabetic retinopathy
Cao, J., Su, T., Chen, S., Du, Z., Lai, C., Chi, K., Li, Q., Wang, S., Wu, Q., Hu, Y., et al. (2025) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo-2024-325771 · Cited by 6
Mendelian Randomization for Dermatology Research
Hettinger, G., Margolis, D. J., & Mitra, N. (2025) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.6068 · Cited by 6
Fan, G. Z., Duan, B., Xin, F. J., & Qu, Z. H. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-89981-3 · Cited by 6
Ma, Z., Zhang, R., Yuan, D., Yu, C., Baranova, A. V., Cao, H., & Zhang, F. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.03.032 · Cited by 7
Zhang, P.-A., Wang, J., Fu, S.-Y., Luo, H.-L., Qin, R.-D., & Li, J. (2025) · World Allergy Organization Journal · doi:10.1016/j.waojou.2025.101038 · Cited by 7
“20 We obtained published GWAS datasets for 5 allergic disorders (allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic conjunctivitis, atopic dermatitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis) and bronchiectasis, along with data on 731 immune cells, 91 in fl ammatory proteins, 1400 plasma metabolites, and 473 gut…”
Daghlas, I., Karhunen, V., Kim, A., & Gill, D. (2025) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.049808 · Cited by 6
Guo, Y., Zhao, W., Hou, S., & Chen, Z. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-98997-8 · Cited by 6
Zhang, X., Peng, N., Zhang, X., Zhu, Z., Yan, M., Wu, Y., Ling, J., Li, C., Gu, W., Zhang, J., et al. (2025) · Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome · doi:10.1186/s13098-025-01712-w · Cited by 9
“The study was reported in accordance with the STROBE-MR (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomization) guidelines [15] (Supplementary Table S1).”
Cai, Y., Liu, K., Wu, P., Yuan, R., He, F., & Zou, J. (2022) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/s12864-022-08925-7 · Cited by 6
Man, S., Chen, B., Zhang, Y., Xu, H., Liu, Y., Gao, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, Q., & Zhang, M. (2023) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-221137 · Cited by 6
Nguyen, A., Khafagy, R. T. M., Hashemy, H., Kuo, K. H. M., Roshandel, D., Paterson, A. D., & Dash, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1146099 · Cited by 9
Leveraging IgG N-glycosylation to infer the causality between T2D and hypertension
Wang, H., Li, Y., Cao, W., Zhang, J., Cao, M., Meng, X., Liu, D., & Wang, Y. (2023) · Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome · doi:10.1186/s13098-023-01053-6 · Cited by 7
Xu, S., Liu, Y., Wáng, Q., Liu, F., Xu, F., & Liu, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2023.1150432 · Cited by 6
Hypertension, antihypertensive drugs, and age at onset of Huntington’s disease
Zhu, Y., Li, M., Bai, J., Wang, H., & Huang, X. (2023) · Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · doi:10.1186/s13023-023-02734-1 · Cited by 6
Du, Q., Zheng, Z., Wang, Y., Yang, L., & Zhou, Z. (2023) · Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s00432-023-05233-9 · Cited by 6
Sun, J., Wang, X., Li, J., Zhang, T., Chen, Q., Liu, W., Cai, L., Zhao, P., Yang, Z., Pan, J., et al. (2023) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001429 · Cited by 6
Zhang, W., & Lang, R. (2023) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1276459 · Cited by 6
Xie, J., Gao, H., Liu, C., Pan, Y., Xu, C., & Xu, L. (2023) · Hepatology Research · doi:10.1111/hepr.13980 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Skrivankova, V. W., Richmond, R. C., Woolf, B. A. R., Yarmolinsky, J., Davies, N. M., Swanson, S. A., VanderWeele, T. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Timpson, N. J., Dimou, N., Langenberg, C., Golub, R. M., Loder, E. W., Gallo, V., Tybjaerg-Hansen, A., Davey Smith, G., Egger, M., & Richards, J. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Harvard University (US)
- Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- University of London (GB)
- Section for Molecular Genetics, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Corresponding author
- Richards, J. Brent
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2021-10-26
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1614
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W3210570897
- Semantic Scholar
- e546bc8b0563867fb604350635927b738d676dff
- Cited by
- 3,994
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 711 · 2025: 1296 · 2024: 1358 · 2023: 470 · 2022: 153 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 297.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- Wellcome Trust (202802/Z/16/Z)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0617-10145)
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/5, MC_UU_00011/1)
- Economic and Social Research Council (2094259)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- Mendelian randomization, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, observational studies, causal inference, instrumental variables, genetic variants, confounding, reverse causality, data sharing, reproducibility, EQUATOR Network
- MeSH terms
- Epidemiology, Humans, Pilot Projects, Bias, Guidelines as Topic, Information Dissemination, Genome-Wide Association Study, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Checklist, Social Media, Observational Studies as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
